Insulin detemir is associated with more predictable glycemic control and reduced risk of hypoglycemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen with premeal insulin aspart

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)]

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

Derivatization with fatty acids in peptide and protein drug discovery

Peptides and proteins are widely used to treat a range of medical conditions; however, they often have to be injected and their effects are short-lived. These shortcomings of the native structure can be addressed by molecular engineering, but this is a complex undertaking. A molecular engineering technology initially applied to insulin - and which has now been successfully applied to several biopharmaceuticals - entails the derivatization of peptides and proteins with fatty acids. Various protraction mechanisms are enabled by the specific characteristics and positions of the attached fatty acid. Furthermore, the technology can ensure a long half-life following oral administration of peptide drugs, can alter the distribution of peptides and may hold potential for tissue targeting. Due to the inherent safety and well-defined chemical nature of the fatty acids, this technology provides a versatile approach to peptide and protein drug discovery.

Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

DESIGN

Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.

RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015023511.

Real-World Impact of Switching From Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) to Basaglar® and Potential Cost Saving in a Large Public Healthcare System in Saudi Arabia

Background

The advent of Basaglar^®, which is a biosimilar insulin glargine formulation for Lantus^® has brought hope that it will result in similar outcomes and lower costs. However, some health practitioners raised some concerns about the therapeutic equivalence of this new biosimilar. Therefore, we aimed to examine the clinical and financial impact of switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^®.

Methods

This was a single–center retrospective chart review study of adult patients (e.g., ≥18 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) who were treated with insulin glargine (Lantus^®) for at least 12 months and then switched to Basaglar^® for another 12 months. The potential cost savings for the years 2018 to 2021 and the cost avoidance for 2022 were estimated using different conversion ratios between the two insulin glargine products (Basaglar^® and Lantus^®) and acquisition prices.

Results

One–hundred patients with DM who were previously treated with Lantus^® and switched to Basaglar^® were retrospectively recruited. About two–thirds of the patients (68%) had type 2 DM, and the male and female patients were equally represented. The mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) at baseline was 9, and the mean difference in the A1C levels before and after switching to Basaglar^® was not significant (0.18, p-value = 0.503, 95% CI [−0.36–0.72]). Although the difference in the total daily insulin units between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® was not significant, the difference was leaning toward statistical significance despite the small sample size (−1.88, P-value = 0.25, 95% CI [−5.15–1.38]). Switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^® could have led to significant cost savings that would range from approximately 1.77 to 23.7 million United States Dollars (USD) for the years 2018 to 2021 assuming an equal conversion ratio. However, those cost savings might not be realized if the switching to Basaglar^® required higher daily insulin units, and the difference in the public tender acquisition price between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® is less than 15%.

Conclusion

Basaglar^® and potentially other biosimilar insulin glargine products can lead to significant cost savings without compromising the quality of care. However, their acquisition prices should be discounted.

Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons

The destruction of β-cells of the pancreas leads to either insulin shortage or the complete absence of insulin, which in turn causes diabetes Mellitus. For treating diabetes, many trials have been conducted since the 19th century until now. In ancient times, insulin from an animal's extract was taken to treat human beings. However, this resulted in some serious allergic reactions. Therefore, scientists and researchers have tried their best to find alternative ways for managing diabetes with progressive advancements in biotechnology. However, a lot of research trials have been conducted, and they discovered more progressed strategies and approaches to treat type I and II diabetes with satisfaction. Still, investigators are finding more appropriate ways to treat diabetes accurately. They formulated insulin analogs that mimic the naturally produced human insulin through recombinant DNA technology and devised many methods for appropriate delivery of insulin. This review will address the following questions: What is insulin preparation? How were these devised and what are the impacts (both positive and negative) of such insulin analogs against TIDM (type-I diabetes mellitus) and TIIDM (type-II diabetes mellitus)? This review article will also demonstrate approaches for the delivery of insulin analogs into the human body and some future directions for further improvement of insulin treatment.

The ongoing evolution of basal insulin therapy over 100 years and its promise for the future

The evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years since the discovery of insulin is a testimony to the biomedical bench-to-bedside process, wherein incremental advances in the basic sciences are progressively translated over time into a series of enhancements in clinical care, each building upon the success of its predecessors. The emergence of recombinant DNA technology and the resultant biosynthesis of human insulin in the 1980s provided the critical capacity to bioengineer designer insulin analogues with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that can better mimic, although not fully replicate, the effects of endogenous insulin secretion. Through these efforts, basal insulin therapy has progressed over this time from first-generation analogues (glargine U-100, detemir) to second-generation analogues (glargine U-300, degludec) to ultra-long-acting formulations that are suitable for administration once weekly (icodec). Each iteration in this progression has represented a step closer towards the goal of replicating the continuous secretion of insulin that normally comprises the basal output of the pancreatic beta-cells between meals, during episodes of fasting and overnight. However, it may be that we may have reached the achievable limit in the context of an "open-loop" approach, such that only with the addition of closed loop control will we be able to achieve physiologic basal insulin replacement. In this review, we will examine the evolution of basal insulin therapy over the past 100 years and its implications for patient care and outcomes in current practice and the future.

Fatty acids may influence insulin dynamics through modulation of albumin-Zn2+ interactions

Insulin is stored within the pancreas in an inactive Zn²⁺ -bound hexameric form prior to release. Similarly, clinical insulins contain Zn²⁺ and form multimeric complexes. Upon release from the pancreas or upon injection, insulin only becomes active once Zn²⁺ disengages from the complex. In plasma and other extracellular fluids, the majority of Zn²⁺ is bound to human serum albumin (HSA), which plays a vital role in controlling insulin pharmacodynamics by enabling removal of Zn²⁺ . The Zn²⁺ -binding properties of HSA are attenuated by non-esterified fatty acids (NEFAs) also transported by HSA. Elevated NEFA concentrations are associated with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Here we present the hypothesis that higher NEFA levels in obese and/or diabetic individuals may contribute to insulin resistance and affect therapeutic insulin dose-response profiles, through modulation of HSA/Zn²⁺ dynamics. We envisage this novel concept to have important implications for personalized treatments and management of diabetes-related conditions in the future.

Trends in Insulin Types and Devices Used by Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in the United States, 2016 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Despite rising costs and public scrutiny devoted to insulin, less is known regarding recent trends in its ambulatory use in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize trends in ambulatory insulin use, overall and based on insulin characteristics, among adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This serial cross-sectional study included patients whose data were collected in IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI), a 2-stage, all-payer, nationally representative audit of outpatient care. Approximately 4800 physicians each calendar quarter completed a form for 2 consecutive days regarding visits for each of their patients, including diagnoses, treatments, and demographic information. Data were collected from January 2016 through December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Ambulatory use of insulin.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Nationally representative projections for ambulatory use of insulin (ie, treatment visits), overall and aggregated by insulin molecule (insulins regular, neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], lispro, glulisine, glargine, detemir, degludec, and aspart), delivery devices (vials/syringes or pens), therapeutic class (short-acting, rapid-acting, long-acting, intermediate-acting, and premixed insulin), insulin type (human, analog, and biosimilar), and date of approval (newer: before 2010; and older: after 2010).

RESULTS

There were 27 860 691 insulin treatment visits between 2016 and 2020. Among all patient encounters that indicated use of insulin in 2020, 1 989 154 (43.9%) were among those aged 60 to 74 years; 2 372 629 (52.4%) among men; 2 646 247 (58.4%) among White patients; 811 639 (17.9%) among Black patients; and 701 912 (15.5%) among Hispanic patients. Insulin glargine was the most frequently used insulin from 2016 to 2020, accounting for approximately half of treatment visits (eg, 2020: 2.6 of 4.9 million visits; 95% CI, 2.1-3.1 million). Among insulin classes, long-acting insulin accounted for approximately two-thirds of treatment visits during this period (eg, 2020: 3.7 million visits; 95% CI, 3.0-4.4 million). Treatment visits for insulin pens increased from 36.1% in 2016 (2.2 of 6.0 million visits; 95% CI, 1.7-2.7 million) to 58.7% in 2020 (2.9 million visits; 95% CI, 2.3-3.5 million), while use of insulin vials/syringes declined in parallel. Analog insulin use predominated and accounted for more than 80% of total treatment visits across all years (eg, 2020: 4.3 million visits; 95% CI, 3.4-5.1 million). Newer insulins were increasingly used, from 18.1% of total treatment visits in 2016 (1.1 million visits; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4 million) to 40.9% in 2020 (2.0 million visits; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5 million). The use of biosimilar insulin, which was first approved in 2015, increased from 2.6% in 2017 (0.1 of 5.3 million visits; 95% CI, 0.04-0.2 million) to 8.2% in 2020 (0.4 million visits; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6 million) of total insulin treatment visits. The total number of insulin treatment visits declined from a peak of 6.0 million visits in 2016 to a nadir of 4.9 million visits in 2020 (approximately 18% decline).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, ambulatory insulin use in the United States during the past 5 years remained dominated by the use of insulin analogs and insulin pen delivery devices, with increasing uptake of newer products as they have been brought to market.

Synthetic long-acting insulin analogs for the management of type 1 diabetes: an update

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency and requires near-physiological insulin replacement. In most patients, this is accomplished by basal bolus therapy consisting of a long-acting basal insulin administered once or twice daily and short-acting insulin with main meals. Several long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to optimize basal insulin therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the design of - and data from - randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess glucose lowering efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the non-inferiority treat-to-target design of insulin, RCTs treatment differences primarily appear as differences in hypoglycemia risk. Data suggest that the first generation long-acting insulin analogs insulin glargine U100 and insulin detemir have a similar glucose lowering efficacy compared to NPH insulin but a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly during nighttime. The newer analogs insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec provide non-inferior efficacy, although insulin glargine U300 is less potent unit-to-unit. Insulin degludec reduces hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine U100. Future studies should explore the potential for further improvement of treatment results in type 1 diabetes by a structured approach to personalization of basal insulin therapy.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

A review of the NG17 recommendations for the use of basal insulin in type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To revisit the data analysis used to inform National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG17 guidance for initiating basal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (diabetes).

METHODS

We replicated the data, methodology and analysis used by NICE diabetes in the NG17 network meta-analysis (NMA). We expanded this data cohort to a more contemporary data set (extended 2017 NMA) and restricted the studies included to improve the robustness of the data set (restricted 2017 NMA) and in a post hoc analysis, changed the index comparator from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily to insulin detemir twice daily.

RESULTS

The absolute changes in HbA_1c were similar to those reported in the NG17. However, all 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c point estimates crossed the line of null effect, except for detemir twice daily (in the NICE and extended 2017 NMAs) and NPH four times daily. In the detemir twice-daily centred post hoc analysis, the 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c crossed the line of null effect for all basal therapies, except NPH.

CONCLUSIONS

In NG17, comparisons of basal insulins were based solely on efficacy of glycaemic control. Many of the trials used in this analysis were treat-to-target, which minimize differences in HbA_1c . In the NMAs, statistical significance was severely undermined by the wide credible intervals. Despite these limitations, point estimates of HbA_1c were used to rank the insulins and formed the basis of NG17 guidance. This study queries whether such analyses should be used to make specific clinical recommendations.

Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Here, we review insulin management options and strategies in nonpregnant adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Most patients with T1DM should follow a regimen of multiple daily injections of basal/bolus insulin, but those not meeting individual glycemic targets or those with frequent or severe hypoglycemia or pronounced dawn phenomenon should consider continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. The latter treatment modality could also be an alternative based on patient preferences and availability of reimbursement. Continuous glucose monitoring may improve glycemic control irrespective of treatment regimen. A glycemic target of glycated hemoglobin < 7% (53 mmol/mol) is appropriate for most nonpregnant adults. Basal insulin analogues with a reduced peak profile and an extended duration of action with lower intraindividual variability relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin are preferred. The clinical advantages of basal analogues compared with older basal insulins include reduced injection burden, better efficacy, lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes (especially nocturnal), and reduced weight gain. For prandial glycemic control, any rapid-acting prandial analogue (aspart, glulisine, lispro) is preferred over regular human insulin. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a relatively new option with the advantage of better postprandial glucose coverage. Frequent blood glucose measurements along with patient education on insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated physical activity is paramount, as is education on the management of blood glucose under different circumstances.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary is available for this article.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2019)]

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

Cyclic Peptides that Govern Signal Transduction Pathways: From Prokaryotes to Multi-Cellular Organisms

Cyclic peptide scaffolds are key components of signal transduction pathways in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms since they act as chemical messengers that activate or inhibit specific cognate receptors. In prokaryotic organisms these peptides are utilized in non-essential pathways, such as quorum sensing, that are responsible for virulence and pathogenicity. In the more evolved eukaryotic systems, cyclic peptide hormones play a key role in the regulation of the overall function of multicellular organisms, mainly through the endocrine system. This review will highlight several prokaryote and eukaryote systems that use cyclic peptides as their primary signals and the potential associated with utilizing these scaffolds for the discovery of novel therapeutics for a wide range of diseases and illnesses.

Inpatient Glycemic Management of the Pregnant Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a rising prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and gestational diabetes (GDM) in pregnancy. Reaching and maintaining glycemic targets during and after this time are important for both the health of the mother and her baby.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on recently published guidelines from various societies, we review the diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy, types of therapies available to maintain euglycemia, important keys to management of T1DM, T2DM, and GDM, and strategies for reaching inpatient glycemic targets during the peripartum period. Care for pregnant patients with T1DM is especially challenging, and providers should be aware of the varying insulin requirements at different stages of pregnancy and how to reduce hypoglycemia and avoid diabetic ketoacidosis. Insulin sensitivity fluctuates throughout pregnancy due to physiologic changes, especially during labor and delivery and immediately post-partum. We review recommendations regarding how to manage this dynamic time and present our own institution's inpatient management protocol. Finally, we review management of diabetes post-partum, including medications, breast-feeding, and continued monitoring and screening. With the collaborative efforts of the patient and an interdisciplinary team and in-depth knowledge of the most up-to-date management principles, it is possible to achieve euglycemia during this critical time of a mother and baby's life.

Glycaemic management during the inpatient enteral feeding of people with stroke and diabetes

This paper is an abridged and modified version of guidelines produced by the Joint British Diabetes Societies for inpatient care on glycaemic management during the enteral feeding of people with stroke and diabetes. These were revised in 2017 and have been adapted specifically for Diabetic Medicine. The full version can be found at: www.diabetes.org.uk/joint-british-diabetes-society or https://abcd.care/joint-british-diabetes-societies-jbds-inpatient-care-group. Many people have both diabetes and an acute stroke, and a stanv dard approach to the management of people with stroke is the provision of adequate nutrition. Frequently, this involves a period of enteral feeding if there is impaired ability to swallow food safely. There is currently considerable variability in the management of people with diabetes fed enterally after a stroke, and the evidence base guiding diabetes management in this clinical situation is very weak, although poor glycaemic outcomes in people receiving enteral feeding after stroke may worsen recovery and cause harm. The aim of this document is to provide sensible clinical guidance in this area, written by a multidisciplinary team; this guideline had input from diabetes specialist nurses, diabetologists, dietitians, stroke physicians and pharmacists with expertise in this area, and from UK professional organizations. It is aimed at multidisciplinary teams managing people with stroke and diabetes who require enteral feeding. We recognize that there is limited clinical evidence in this area.

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.

Aim

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.

Methods

We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.

Results

We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).

Conclusion

This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.

Hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: technological treatments, their limitations and the place of psychology

Advances in technology allowing improved insulin delivery and glucose monitoring can significantly reduce the burden of hypoglycaemia when used appropriately. However, limitations of the current technology, and the skills, commitment and motivation required to use them, mean that it does not work for all people. Education and informed professional support are key to success. In the context of problematic hypoglycaemia, data suggest that newer technology has lower efficacy and uptake in those with most need. Identifying the causes of hypoglycaemia and understanding some of the underlying behavioural drivers may prove useful and psycho-educational strategies may be effective in selected individuals. Ultimately, as in many spheres of medicine, successful management of problematic hypoglycaemia depends upon matching the right treatment to the right individual.

Clinical and Cost Implications of Insulin Degludec in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: A Quality Improvement Project

INTRODUCTION

To assess the real-life clinical benefits and cost implications of switching from another basal insulin to insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on basal-bolus regimens with recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

METHODS

Patients with T1D who were aged ≥ 18 years, were on a basal-bolus regimen, and had switched to degludec plus bolus insulin for at least 6 months were included. Patients had to have switched to degludec as a result of recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

RESULTS

Six months of follow-up data were available for 42 patients. At 6 months, there was a significant reduction in median (interquartile range) HbA_1c, from 8.6 (8.0-9.3)% [70 (64-78) mmol/mol] to 8.4 (7.9-8.9)% [68 (63-74) mmol/mol]; p < 0.05. Median daily basal insulin dose reduced significantly from 30.0 (14.7-45.0) to 25.5 (14.0-30.2) units; p < 0.0001. Data from hospital records showed reductions in the frequency of episodes of severe hypoglycemia from eight in the 6 months preceding degludec initiation to two in the 6 months following initiation. In the same period, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes reduced from two before degludec initiation to no episodes after initiation. No patients reported worsening treatment satisfaction after switching to degludec. Considering the reductions in the basal dose required and the frequency of hypoglycemia episodes, we estimate that switching such patients to degludec from other basal insulins could provide significant savings in direct healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T1D, switching to degludec was associated with an improvement in HbA_1c and reductions in basal insulin dose, severe hypoglycemia, and DKA. When used in appropriate patients, degludec could lead to significant cost savings.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials comparing two or more basal insulin regimens were conducted. The following basal insulin regimens were included: Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (iNPH) (once [od], twice [bid], and four times daily [qid]), insulin detemir (iDet) (od and bid), insulin glargine 100 IU (iGlarg) (od), and insulin degludec (iDegl) (od). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via OVID, Embase via OVID, and the Cochrane Library (Wiley). Study quality was appraised using Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist for randomized controlled trials. Two outcomes (change in hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c] and rate of severe/major hypoglycemia [SH]) were analyzed. Network inconsistency was assessed using Bucher and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Thirty studies met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five were included in the HbA_1c network and 16 in the SH network. All studies were of moderate quality. No network inconsistency was evident in the HbA_1c network. Of the seven regimens of interest, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being best (mean change in HbA_1c -0.48; 95% credible interval -0.69 to -0.29). In contrast, the SH network demonstrated both considerable uncertainty and significant network inconsistency (χ² test, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the specified frequency regimens, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being the best basal insulin regimen in terms of reduction in HbA_1c. Ranking of the regimens in terms of the SH rate was highly uncertain and no clear conclusion could be made.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and a major economic burden. The prevalence of T2DM is rising, suggesting more effective prevention and treatment strategies are necessary. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the pharmacologic treatment options available for patients with T2DM. Each therapeutic class is presented in detail, outlining medication effects, side effects, glycemic control, effect on weight, indications and contraindications, and use in selected populations (heart failure, renal insufficiency, obesity and the elderly). We also present representative cost for each antidiabetic category. Then, we provide an individualized guide for initiation and intensification of treatment and discuss the considerations and rationale for an individualized glycemic goal.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the UK using a short-term modeling approach

BACKGROUND

To estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin based on the incidence of non-severe hypoglycemia and changes in body weight in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK.

METHODS

A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on non-severe hypoglycemia, body mass index, and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of non-severe hypoglycemia were employed in the T1D and T2D analyses, while reduced weight gain with IDet was modeled in the T2D analysis only. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy using published utility scores. Pharmacy costs were captured using published prices and defined daily doses. Costs were expressed in 2016 pounds sterling (GBP). Sensitivity analyses were performed (including probabilistic sensitivity analysis).

RESULTS

In T1D, IDet was associated with fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events than NPH insulin (126.7 versus 150.8 events per person-year), leading to an improvement of 0.099 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs with IDet were GBP 60 higher, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 610 per QALY gained. In T2D, mean non-severe hypoglycemic event rates and body weight were lower with IDet than NPH insulin, leading to a total incremental utility of 0.120, accompanied by an annual cost increase of GBP 171, yielding an ICER of GBP 1,422 per QALY gained for IDet versus NPH insulin.

CONCLUSION

Short-term health economic evaluation showed IDet to be a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the UK due to lower rates of non-severe hypoglycemia (T1D and T2D) and reduced weight gain (T2D only).

Impact of Insulin Detemir Administration Time on Hypoglycemia Rates in Hospitalized Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if insulin detemir administration time affects the frequency of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level <70 mg/dl) in hospitalized patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

A total of 357 adults (aged 18-89 yrs) who received insulin detemir for at least 48 hours while hospitalized between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, were included. Patients were categorized into one of three groups according to insulin detemir administration time: detemir given once/day between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. (AM group [71 patients]), detemir given once/day between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. (PM group [158 patients]), and detemir given twice/day (BID group [128 patients]).

SETTING

Community hospital.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was the percentage of patient days with any occurrence of hypoglycemia. The key secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients who experienced any hypoglycemic event, severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia requiring treatment, and refractory hypoglycemia; time of hypoglycemia; and percentage of patients experiencing one or more episodes of hyperglycemia. The AM group had a lower proportion of days with hypoglycemia compared with the PM group (7.9% vs 11.9%, p=0.008). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower proportion of days with hypoglycemia in the BID group compared with the PM group (9.1% vs 11.9%, p=0.0302). No significant differences in percentage of patient days with hyperglycemia and rates of severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia requiring treatment, or refractory hypoglycemia were noted among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Administration of detemir in the morning may reduce the occurrence of hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients. Institutions that include detemir on their formularies may consider evaluating the incidence of hypoglycemia and modifying administration schedules as part of their medication safety program.

Reporting Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes: Facts and Pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe potential factors influencing reporting of severe hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 1 diabetes and to analyze their effect on reported rates of severe hypoglycemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reported rates of severe hypoglycemia defined as need for third party assistance vary between 0.3-3.0 events per patient-year in unselected cohorts, corresponding to a yearly prevalence range of 10-53%. When defined as need for parenteral therapy with glucose or glucagon or need for admission to an emergency unit or hospitalization, incidence and prevalence rates of severe hypoglycemia are 0.02-0.5 events per patient-year and 1-29%, respectively. When subjects with recurrent severe hypoglycemia in the past or suffering from impaired hypoglycemia awareness are excluded from participation in studies, lower rates are reported. Studies applying anonymous reporting or reporting by partners report higher rates of severe hypoglycemia. There is a large variation between studies reporting incidence and prevalence of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes, mainly explained by definition of severity, methods of reporting, and patient selection. These findings call for consensus about hypoglycemia definition and reporting in future research.

Similar HbA1c reduction and hypoglycaemia with variable- vs fixed-time dosing of basal insulin peglispro in type 1 diabetes: IMAGINE 7 study

AIMS

To compare 24-hour fixed-time basal insulin peglispro (BIL) dosing with 8- to 40-hour variable-time BIL dosing for glycaemic control and safety in patients with type 1 diabetes. Primary outcome was non-inferiority of BIL variable-time dosing compared with fixed-time dosing for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change after 12-week treatment (margin = 0.4%).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Phase 3, open-label, randomized, cross-over study (N = 212) was conducted at 20 centres in the United States. During the 12-week lead-in phase, patients received BIL daily at fixed-times. Two 12-week randomized cross-over treatment phases followed, where patients received BIL dosed at either fixed- or variable-times. During the 4-week safety follow-up, patients received conventional insulins.

RESULTS

During the lead-in period, least-squares mean HbA1c decreased from 7.5% to 6.8%. For BIL, variable-time dosing was non-inferior to fixed-time dosing for HbA1c change [least-squares mean difference = 0.06%, 95% confidence interval (-0.01, 0.13)]. In both regimens, HbA1c increased slightly during the cross-over periods, but remained significantly below baseline. Variable- and fixed-time dosing regimens had similar rates of total hypoglycaemia (10.4 ± 0.62 and 10.5 ± 0.67 events/patient/30 days, P = .947) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (1.3 ± 0.11 and 1.5 ± 0.13 events/patient/30days, P = .060). Comparable proportions of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0% with variable- [91 (54.5%)] and fixed-time dosing [101 (60.5%)].

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with BIL allows patients to use flexible dosing intervals from 8 to 40 hours. Glycaemic efficacy (HbA1c), glycaemic variability and hypoglycaemia are similar to fixed-time dosing, suggesting that BIL could potentially provide flexibility in dosing for patients who miss their daily basal insulin.

The past, present, and future of basal insulins

Insulin production by the pancreas follows a basic pattern where basal levels of insulin are secreted during fasting periods, with prandial increases in insulin associated with food ingestion. The aim of insulin therapy in patients with diabetes is to match the endogenous pattern of insulin secretion as closely as possible without causing hypoglycaemia. There are several optimal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of long-acting basal insulins that can help to achieve this aim, namely, as follows: activity that is flat and as free of peaks as possible, a duration of action of ≥24-h, and as little day-to-day variation as possible. The long-acting basal insulins are a fundamental therapy for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and those that are currently available have many benefits; however, the development of even longer-acting insulins and improved insulin delivery techniques may lead to better glycemic control for patients in the future. Established long-acting basal insulins available in the United States and Europe include insulin glargine 100 units/mL and insulin detemir, both of which exhibit similar glycemic control to that of the intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, but with a reduction in hypoglycaemia. Newer insulin products available include new insulin glargine 300 units/mL (United States and Europe) and the ultra-long-acting insulin degludec (Europe) with basal insulin peglispro currently in development. These new insulins demonstrate different pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and longer durations of action (>24 h) compared with insulin glargine 100 units/mL, which may lead to potential benefits. The introduction of biosimilar insulins may also broaden access to insulins by reducing treatment costs. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Review: Pharmacology of insulin

Diabetes is associated with microvascular and macrovascular complications leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Glycaemic control is important to prevent and delay the progression of these complications. An ideal insulin regimen in patients with diabetes would mirror the 24-hour insulin profile of a non-diabetic person and thereby prevent hyperglycaemia without inducing hypoglycaemia. This has, until recently, proved difficult to reproduce by regular subcutaneous insulin injections due to the inherent pharmacokinetic properties of the available insulins. Normoglycaemia was rarely achieved without hypoglycaemia compromising the quality of patients' lives. The advent of the new long- and short-acting insulin analogues are expected to both improve glycaemic control leading to a reduction in diabetes-related complications and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia thereby offering patients a better lifestyle.

Review: The evolution of insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes: the advent of analogues

Treating patients with type 1 diabetes to near-normal glycaemic levels significantly reduces the risk of microvascular complications and improves patient outcomes. Consequently, achieving and maintaining optimal glycaemic control is a key therapeutic aim and clear guidance regarding glycaemic targets now exists. The challenge is to achieve this level of control in routine clinical practice whilst minimising the treatment-related adverse events of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The development of both rapid- and long-acting insulin analogues offers the potential to meet this challenge, with results from clinical trials indicating that analogue insulins have therapeutic benefits over older insulin preparations. However, it is important to see if these benefits can be repeated in non-clinical trial patient populations and, therefore, this article summarises the results from prospective audits of introducing insulin lispro and insulin glargine into routine clinical practice in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Weight gain and insulin therapy

Weight gain is common with insulin therapy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Excessive weight gain worsens glycaemic control and increases cardiovascular risk. It can also increase diabetic morbidity and mortality if it acts as a psychological barrier to initiation or intensification of insulin therapy, or affects compliance. Insulin-associated weight gain might result from conservation of previously excreted glucose, defensive `snacking' caused by fear or experience of hypoglycaemia, or the `unphysiological' pharmacokinetic profiles that follow sc insulin administration. Strategies to limit insulin-mediated weight gain include increasing insulin sensitivity through dietary modification, exercise or insulin sensitising drugs. Attempts to replace insulin using regimens that accurately mimic physiological norms should also enable insulin to be dosed with maximum efficiency. The novel analogue insulin, detemir, has not of the pharmacological mechanisms underlying this shown the usual propensity for weight gain. Elucidation of the pharmacological mechanisms property could further clarify mechanism linking insulin with weight regulation.

New Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL Versus Glargine 100 Units/mL in People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Phase 3a, Open-Label Clinical Trial (EDITION 4)

OBJECTIVE

Insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes still provides suboptimal outcomes. Insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300), with a flatter pharmacodynamic profile compared with insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100), is an approach to this problem.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

People with type 1 diabetes, using a mealtime and basal insulin regimen, were randomized open-label to Gla-300 or Gla-100 and to morning or evening injection, continuing the mealtime analog, and followed for 6 months.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 549) were a mean age of 47 years and had a mean duration of diabetes of 21 years and BMI of 27.6 kg/m(2). The change in HbA1c (primary end point; baseline 8.1%) was equivalent in the two treatment groups (difference, 0.04% [95% CI -0.10 to 0.19]) (0.4 mmol/mol [-1.1 to 2.1]), and Gla-300 was thus noninferior. Similar results with wider 95% CIs were found for morning and evening injection times and for prebreakfast self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) overall. Results were also similar for Gla-300 when morning and evening injection time was compared, including overlapping 8-point SMPG profiles. Hypoglycemia did not differ, except for the first 8 weeks of the study, when nocturnal confirmed or severe hypoglycemia was lower with Gla-300 (rate ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.53-0.91]). Hypoglycemia with Gla-300 did not differ by time of injection. The basal insulin dose was somewhat higher at 6 months for Gla-300. The adverse event profile did not differ and was independent of the Gla-300 time of injection. Weight gain was lower with Gla-300.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-duration type 1 diabetes, Gla-300 provides similar glucose control to Gla-100, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia after transfer from other insulins, independent of time of injection, and less weight gain.

Decrease in clinical hypoglycemia in young children with type 1 diabetes treated with free-mixed aspart and detemir insulin: an open labeled randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a free-mix of aspart (A) and detemir (D) insulins (ADIM) with a commonly used premixed fixed-ratio aspart and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin mixture (ANIM) in young children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with twice-daily injections. The trial thus compares not only D vs. NPH, but also flexible, personalized insulin preparations vs. a fixed premixed preparation.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, open-label, randomized trial included 82 children with T1D. Patients stayed on ANIM for 1 yr of optimization of disease management, then were randomized to either ANIM (N = 41) or ADIM (N = 41) for another year.

OUTCOMES

Frequency of severe or symptomatic episodes, glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and blood glucose (BG) values.

RESULTS

Compared with ANIM, ADIM decreases symptomatic hypoglycemia by approximately 2 fold (p < 0.001) and severe hypoglycemia by 7-10 fold (p = 0.04). ADIM somewhat reduced BG variation. Mean HbA1c was comparable on ADIM (7.9 ± 0.8 %; 63 ± 9 mmol/mol) and ANIM (8.2 ± 0.7 %; 66 ± 8 mmol/mol).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a free-mixing preparation of aspart and detemir insulin decreases hypoglycemia in young children with type 1 diabetes.

Cardiovascular effects of basal insulins

Basal insulin is an important component of treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. One of the principal aims of treatment in patients with diabetes is the prevention of diabetic complications, including cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence, although controversial, that attainment of good glycemic control reduces long-term cardiovascular risk in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the potential cardiovascular safety of the different available preparations of basal insulin. Current basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], or isophane) and basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir, and the more recent degludec) differ essentially by various measures of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in the bloodstream, presence and persistence of peak action, and within-subject variability in the glucose-lowering response. The currently available data show that basal insulin analogs have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH human insulin, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, then excluding additional harmful effects on the cardiovascular system mediated by activation of the adrenergic system. Given that no biological rationale for a possible difference in cardiovascular effect of basal insulins has been proposed so far, available meta-analyses of publicly disclosed randomized controlled trials do not show any signal of increased risk of major cardiovascular events between the different basal insulin analogs. However, the number of available cardiovascular events in these trials is very small, preventing any clear-cut conclusion. The results of an ongoing clinical trial comparing glargine and degludec with regard to cardiovascular safety will provide definitive evidence.

Insulin Detemir Is Transported From Blood to Cerebrospinal Fluid and Has Prolonged Central Anorectic Action Relative to NPH Insulin

Insulin detemir (DET) reduces glycemia comparably to other long-acting insulin formulations but causes less weight gain. Insulin signaling in the brain is catabolic, reducing food intake. We hypothesized that DET reduces weight gain, relative to other insulins, owing to increased transport into the central nervous system and/or increased catabolic action within the brain. Transport of DET and NPH insulin into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was compared over several hours and after the administration of different doses peripherally in rats. DET and NPH had comparable saturable, receptor-mediated transport into the CSF. CSF insulin remained elevated significantly longer after intraperitoneal DET than after NPH. When administered acutely into the 3rd cerebral ventricle, both DET and NPH insulin reduced food intake and body weight at 24 h, and both food intake and body weight remained lower after DET than after NPH after 48 h. In direct comparison with another long-acting insulin, insulin glargine (GLAR), DET led to more prolonged increases in CSF insulin despite a shorter plasma half-life in both rats and mice. Additionally, peripheral DET administration reduced weight gain and increased CSF insulin compared with saline or GLAR in mice. Overall, these data support the hypothesis that DET has distinct effects on energy balance through enhanced and prolonged centrally mediated reduction of food intake.

Effect of subcutaneous insulin detemir on glucose flux and lipolysis during hyperglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate, using a novel non-steady-state protocol, the differential effects of subcutaneous (s.c.) detemir and NPH insulin on glucose flux and lipid metabolism after insulin withdrawal.

METHODS

After a period of insulin withdrawal resulting in whole-blood glucose concentration of 7 mmol/l, 11 participants (five men, mean age 41.0 years, mean body mass index 25 kg/m(2)) with type 1 diabetes (mean glycated haemoglobin concentration 57 mmol/mol, mean diabetes duration 14 years) received 0.5 units per kg body weight s.c. insulin detemir or NPH insulin in random order. Stable isotopes of glucose and glycerol were infused intravenously throughout the study protocol.

RESULTS

Glucose concentration decreased after insulin treatment as a result of suppression of endogenous glucose production, which occurred to a similar extent with both detemir and NPH insulin. The rate of glucose disappearance (Rd) was not increased significantly with either type of insulin. When the effect of detemir and NPH insulin on glucose flux at glucose concentrations between 9 and 6 mmol/l was examined, glucose rate of appearance (Ra) was similar with the two insulins; however, glucose Rd was greater with NPH insulin than with detemir at glucose concentrations of 8.0, 8.5, 7.0 and 6.0 mmol/l (p < 0.05) The percentage change in glycerol Ra, a measure of lipolysis, was greater in the NPH group than in the detemir group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study are consistent with the hypothesis that detemir has a lesser effect on the periphery, as evidenced by a lesser effect on peripheral glucose uptake at specific glucose concentrations.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin glargine given in the evening as compared with in the morning in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after evening versus morning administration.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Ten T2DM insulin-treated persons were studied during 24-h euglycemic glucose clamp, after glargine injection (0.4 units/kg s.c.), either in the evening (2200 h) or the morning (1000 h).

RESULTS

The 24-h glucose infusion rate area under the curve (AUC0-24h) was similar in the evening and morning studies (1,058 ± 571 and 995 ± 691 mg/kg × 24 h, P = 0.503), but the first 12 h (AUC0-12h) was lower with evening versus morning glargine (357 ± 244 vs. 593 ± 374 mg/kg × 12 h, P = 0.004), whereas the opposite occurred for the second 12 h (AUC12-24h 700 ± 396 vs. 403 ± 343 mg/kg × 24 h, P = 0.002). The glucose infusion rate differences were totally accounted for by different rates of endogenous glucose production, not utilization. Plasma insulin and C-peptide levels did not differ in evening versus morning studies. Plasma glucagon levels (AUC0-24h 1,533 ± 656 vs. 1,120 ± 344 ng/L/h, P = 0.027) and lipolysis (free fatty acid AUC0-24h 7.5 ± 1.6 vs. 8.9 ± 1.9 mmol/L/h, P = 0.005; β-OH-butyrate AUC0-24h 6.8 ± 4.7 vs. 17.0 ± 11.9 mmol/L/h, P = 0.005; glycerol, P < 0.020) were overall more suppressed after evening versus morning glargine administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The PD of insulin glargine differs depending on time of administration. With morning administration insulin activity is greater in the first 0-12 h, while with evening administration the activity is greater in the 12-24 h period following dosing. However, glargine PK and plasma C-peptide levels were similar, as well as glargine PD when analyzed by 24-h clock time independent of the time of administration. Thus, the results reflect the impact of circadian changes in insulin sensitivity in T2DM (lower in the night-early morning vs. afternoon hours) rather than glargine per se.

Insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes

Although not curable, type 1 diabetes is eminently controllable. IIT, as guided by the results of landmark studies such as the DCCT, provides primary care providers with a blueprint for reducing the frequency of the devastating complications of diabetes that were all too common in the recent past. Considering the remarkable advances in contemporary therapy, including MDI and CSII, the likelihood of even greater future improvements in quality of life and survivability can be anticipated. Success requires patient engagement and education, an informed primary care provider, and an interdisciplinary team to maximize the benefits of insulin therapy and avoid the risks of hypoglycemia.

Modern basal insulin analogs: An incomplete story

The currently available basal insulin does not completely mimic the endogenous insulin secretion. This has continued to promote the search for ideal basal insulin. The newer basal insulin have primarily focused on increasing the duration of action, reducing variability, and reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal. However, the changing criteria of hypoglycemia within a short span of a few years along with the surprising introduction of major cardiac events as another outcome measure has not only clouded the assessment of basal insulin but has also polarized opinion worldwide about the utility of the newer basal insulin. A critical review of both the pre and post FDA analysis of all the basal insulin in this article attempts to clear some of the confusion surrounding the issues of hypoglycemia and glycemic control. This article also discusses all the trials and meta-analysis done on all the current basal insulin available along with their head-to-head comparison with particular attention to glycemic control and hypoglycemic events including severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. This in-depth analysis hopes to provide a clear interpretation of the various analyses available in literature at this point of time thereby acting as an excellent guide to the readers in choosing the most appropriate basal insulin for their patient.

Safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting versus intermediate acting insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.

RESULTS

39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference -0.39%, 95% confidence interval -0.59% to -0.19%; -0.26%, -0.48% to -0.03%; and -0.36%, -0.65% to -0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: -5.51 kg, -6.56 to -4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: -5.14 kg, -6.07 to -4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013003610.

Insulin analogs--is there a compelling case to use them? No!

The availability of insulin analogs has offered insulin replacement strategies that are proposed to more closely mimic normal human physiology. Specifically, there are a considerable number of reports demonstrating that prandial insulin analogs (lispro, aspart, glulisine) have pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles closer to normal, with resulting faster onset and offset of insulin effect when compared with regular human insulin. In addition, basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir) have been reported to offer longer duration of action, less variability, more predictability, less hypoglycemia (especially nocturnal), and a favorable effect on weight. However, an argument against use of analog insulins as compared with use of regular or NPH insulin is one that states that the effectiveness and risk of hypoglycemia are the only two valid clinical outcomes that should be used to compare the analog and human insulins. Thus, there remains a debate in some circles that analog insulins are no more effective than human insulins, yet at a much higher financial cost. To provide an in-depth understanding of both sides of the argument, we provide a discussion of this topic as part of this two-part point-counterpoint narrative. In the counterpoint narrative presented here, Dr. Davidson provides his argument and defends his opinion that outside of a few exceptions, analog insulins provide no clinical benefit compared with human insulins but cost much more. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Grunberger provides a defense of analog insulins and their value in clinical management and suggests that when evaluating the “cost” of therapy, a much more global assessment is needed.

Insulin analogs-are they worth it? Yes!

The availability of insulin analogs has offered insulin replacement strategies that are proposed to more closely mimic normal human physiology. Specifically, there are a considerable number of reports demonstrating that prandial insulin analogs (lispro, aspart, glulisine) have pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles closer to normal, with resulting faster onset and offset of insulin effect when compared with regular human insulin. In addition, basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir) have been reported to offer longer duration of action, less variability, more predictability, less hypoglycemia (especially nocturnal), and a favorable effect on weight. However, an argument against use of analog insulins as compared with use of regular or NPH insulin is one that states that the effectiveness and risk of hypoglycemia are the only two valid clinical outcomes that should be used to compare the analog and human insulins. Thus, there remains a debate in some circles that analog insulins are no more effective than human insulins, yet at a much higher financial cost. To provide an in-depth understanding of both sides of the argument, we provide a discussion of this topic as part of this two-part point-counterpoint narrative. In the counterpoint narrative presented here, Dr. Davidson provides his argument and defends his opinion that outside of a few exceptions, analog insulins provide no clinical benefit compared with human insulins but cost much more. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Grunberger provides a defense of analog insulins and their value in clinical management and suggests that when evaluating the “cost” of therapy, a much more global assessment is needed.